IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.20144 of 2025 Decided on 22nd July 2026 Sh. Satender Pal …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “that Annexure P-2 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to reenroll the petitioner as Home Guards with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled as a Home Guard under the 4th Battalion, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., on 15.09.1991 and he served as such till the year 1999. 3. His limited case is that thereafter, as several of those who were engaged as Home Guard volunteers were re- engaged, he also approached the authorities, but they are 2 denying his claim on the ground that there is no provision of re- engagement of the discharged Home Guard volunteers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand of the respondents is bad because, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3628 of 2020 titled Inder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 05.01.2021 and in CWP No. 209 of 2022, titled Bakshi Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 06.01.2022, the petitioner has a right to be re-engaged provided he fulfills the eligibility criteria. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General referred to the reply filed by the State and by referring to Annexure R-3/1 appended therewith and submitted that as there is no provision in the H.P. Home Guard Act for re- enrolment of volunteers, hence the petitioner cannot be re- engaged. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith as also the judgment of this Court in Inder Singh versus State of 3 Himachal Pradesh and others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the stand of the Department is not sustainable in law. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Inder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others has been pleased to hold as under:- “The writ petitioner became enrolled, as, a volunteer in the Home Guards, on, 15.1.1997, and, thereafter, on 15.2.2001, he was put in the reserved force. However, though he was, through an application hence made to the respondent concerned, and, subject to his declared fitness, in all respects, hence entitled to re-claim his reenrollment or re-enlistment, as a Volunteer in Home 2 2 Guard. However, only in the year 2018, he motioned the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, through, his instituting thereat OA bearing No. 374 of 2018, and, thereon, the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, directed that the afore original application, be treated, as a representation to the respondent concerned, and, also directed qua a decision being made thereon, in accordance with relevant Rules. In pursuance thereof, as becomes unfolded, by Annexure R-1, the authority concerned declined the request, of, the writ petitioner, for his becoming re-enrolled, as a volunteer, in, the, Home Guards, hence for the reason(s), (a) in asmuch as, his claim being time barred, and, secondarily, upon, despite his becoming enjoined to move an apposite application, for the afore purpose, before the authority concerned, his not endeavoring to move it. 2. Be that as it may, the effects of all the afore may, become undone, rather only for ensuring that since, the writ petitioner, is otherwise, not, declared, in the reply, on affidavit, sworn by the respondent, to be unfit, for performing the apposite duties, nor, is declared therein, 3 3 to, during the tenure, of, his service as a volunteer in the Home Guards, qua 4 his not performing his duties, with lack of efficiency, and, or his mis-conducting, himself, (i) thereupons, besides when the perusal, of, Annexure P-2, discloses that the persons aspiring to be re-enlisted as volunteer(s) in the Home Guards, are not, to cross the prescribed therein age bar of 50 years, (ii) thereupon, when it is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the writ petitioner has not crossed the apposite age bar, hence, the respondents concerned, are, directed to, subject, to his also meteing compliance with Rule 3, of Annexure P-2, inasmuch as, his being (a) not less than 18 years and not more than 50 years of age, (b) is of good moral character; (c) is physically fit to undergo ardous out-door duties and has been medically examined and found to be of normal health; (d) is at least literate in Hindi; (e) is not wholly engaged in any course of study in any educational institution and has an employment or profession; (f) is not a member of the Territorial Army; (g) takes an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as laid down in 4 4 the form of pledge appended to these rules, hence proceed to consider the request of the respondent, for, his reenrollment, as a volunteer in the Home Guards. In view of the afore, the writ petition is disposed of. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.” 7. Thus, in terms of the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench, re-enlistment of a volunteer in the Home Guard is permissible provided he fulfills the eligibility criteria for enrolment otherwise as a Home Guard volunteer. 8. Therefore, in light of this fact, as the stand of the State that there is no provision in the Act for re-engagement cannot justify denying the right of re-engagement to the 5 petitioner in light of the law declared by this Court, this petition is allowed by quashing order dated 25.09.2025 and by directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for re- engagement as a Home Guard volunteer, provided he fulfills the eligibility criteria, including the age criteria. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. If found fit, the petitioner be enrolled as a Home Guard volunteer prospectively. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2026 (Vinod)